You know you’re doing someÂthing right in your life if the Nobel Prize-winÂning author of 100 Years of SoliÂtude talks to you like a gidÂdy fan boy.
Back in OctoÂber 1990, Gabriel GarÂcĂa Márquez sat down with AkiÂra KuroÂsawa in Tokyo as the JapanÂese masÂter direcÂtor was shootÂing his penulÂtiÂmate movie RhapÂsody in August — the only KuroÂsawa movie I can think of that feaÂtures Richard Gere. The six hour interÂview, which was pubÂlished in The Los AngeÂles Times in 1991, spanned a range of topÂics but the author’s love of the director’s movies was eviÂdent all the way through. At one point, while disÂcussing Kurosawa’s 1965 film Red Beard, GarÂcĂa Márquez said this: “I have seen it six times in 20 years and I talked about it to my chilÂdren almost every day until they were able to see it. So not only is it the one among your films best liked by my famÂiÂly and me, but also one of my favorites in the whole hisÂtoÂry of cinÂeÂma.”
One natÂurÂal topÂic disÂcussed was adaptÂing litÂerÂaÂture to film. The hisÂtoÂry of cinÂeÂma is litÂtered with some truÂly dreadÂful adapÂtaÂtions and even more that are simÂply inert and lifeÂless. One of the Kurosawa’s true gifts as a filmÂmakÂer was turnÂing the writÂten word into a vital, memÂoÂrable image. In movies like Throne of Blood and Ran, he has proved himÂself to be arguably the finest adapter of ShakeÂspeare in the hisÂtoÂry of cinÂeÂma.
GarÂcĂa Márquez: Has your method also been that intuÂitive when you have adaptÂed ShakeÂspeare or Gorky or DosÂtoÂevsky?
KuroÂsawa: DirecÂtors who make films halfway may not realÂize that it is very difÂfiÂcult to conÂvey litÂerÂary images to the audiÂence through cinÂeÂmatÂic images. For instance, in adaptÂing a detecÂtive novÂel in which a body was found next to the railÂroad tracks, a young direcÂtor insistÂed that a cerÂtain spot corÂreÂspondÂed perÂfectÂly with the one in the book. “You are wrong,” I said. “The probÂlem is that you have already read the novÂel and you know that a body was found next to the tracks. But for the peoÂple who have not read it there is nothÂing speÂcial about the place.” That young direcÂtor was capÂtiÂvatÂed by the magÂiÂcal powÂer of litÂerÂaÂture withÂout realÂizÂing that cinÂeÂmatÂic images must be expressed in a difÂferÂent way.
GarÂcĂa Márquez: Can you rememÂber any image from real life that you conÂsidÂer imposÂsiÂble to express on film?
KuroÂsawa: Yes. That of a minÂing town named IliÂdachi [sic], where I worked as an assisÂtant direcÂtor when I was very young. The direcÂtor had declared at first glance that the atmosÂphere was magÂnifÂiÂcent and strange, and that’s the reaÂson we filmed it. But the images showed only a run-of-the-mill town, for they were missÂing someÂthing that was known to us: that the workÂing conÂdiÂtions in (the town) are very danÂgerÂous, and that the women and chilÂdren of the minÂers live in eterÂnal fear for their safeÂty. When one looks at the vilÂlage one conÂfusÂes the landÂscape with that feelÂing, and one perÂceives it as stranger than it actuÂalÂly is. But the camÂera does not see it with the same eyes.
When KuroÂsawa and GarÂcĂa Márquez talked about RhapÂsody in August, the mood of the interÂview darkÂened. The film is about one old woman strugÂgling with the horÂrors of surÂvivÂing the atomÂic attack on NagasaÂki. When it came out, AmerÂiÂcan critÂics brisÂtled at the movie because it had the audacÂiÂty to point out that many JapanÂese weren’t all that pleased with getÂting nuked. This is espeÂcialÂly the case with NagasaÂki. While HiroshiÂma had numerÂous facÂtoÂries and thereÂfore could be conÂsidÂered a milÂiÂtary tarÂget, NagasaÂki had none. In fact, on August 9, 1945, the origÂiÂnal tarÂget for the world’s secÂond nuclear attack was the indusÂtriÂal town of Kita Kyushu. But that town was covÂered in clouds. So the pilots cast about lookÂing for some place, any place, to bomb. That place proved to NagasaÂki.
Below, KuroÂsawa talks pasÂsionÂateÂly about the legaÂcy of the bombÂing. InterÂestÂingÂly, GarÂcĂa Márquez, who had often been a vocifÂerÂous critÂic of AmerÂiÂcan forÂeign polÂiÂcy, sort of defends America’s actions at the end of the war.
KuroÂsawa: The full death toll for HiroshiÂma and NagasaÂki has been offiÂcialÂly pubÂlished at 230,000. But in actuÂal fact there were over half a milÂlion dead. And even now there are still 2,700 patients at the AtomÂic Bomb HosÂpiÂtal waitÂing to die from the after-effects of the radiÂaÂtion after 45 years of agony. In othÂer words, the atomÂic bomb is still killing JapanÂese.
GarÂcĂa Márquez: The most ratioÂnal explaÂnaÂtion seems to be that the U.S. rushed in to end it with the bomb for fear that the SoviÂets would take Japan before they did.
KuroÂsawa: Yes, but why did they do it in a city inhabÂitÂed only by civilÂians who had nothÂing to do with the war? There were milÂiÂtary conÂcenÂtraÂtions that were in fact wagÂing war.
GarÂcĂa Márquez: Nor did they drop it on the ImpeÂrÂiÂal Palace, which must have been a very vulÂnerÂaÂble spot in the heart of Tokyo. And I think that this is all explained by the fact that they wantÂed to leave the politÂiÂcal powÂer and the milÂiÂtary powÂer intact in order to carÂry out a speedy negoÂtiÂaÂtion withÂout havÂing to share the booty with their allies. It’s someÂthing no othÂer counÂtry has ever expeÂriÂenced in all of human hisÂtoÂry. Now then: Had Japan surÂrenÂdered withÂout the atomÂic bomb, would it be the same Japan it is today?
KuroÂsawa: It’s hard to say. The peoÂple who surÂvived NagasaÂki don’t want to rememÂber their expeÂriÂence because the majorÂiÂty of them, in order to surÂvive, had to abanÂdon their parÂents, their chilÂdren, their brothÂers and sisÂters. They still can’t stop feelÂing guilty. AfterÂwards, the U.S. forces that occuÂpied the counÂtry for six years influÂenced by varÂiÂous means the accelÂerÂaÂtion of forÂgetÂfulÂness, and the JapanÂese govÂernÂment colÂlabÂoÂratÂed with them. I would even be willÂing to underÂstand all this as part of the inevitable tragedy genÂerÂatÂed by war. But I think that, at the very least, the counÂtry that dropped the bomb should apolÂoÂgize to the JapanÂese peoÂple. Until that hapÂpens this draÂma will not be over.
The whole interÂview is fasÂciÂnatÂing. They conÂtinÂue to talk about hisÂtorÂiÂcal memÂoÂry, nuclear powÂer and the difÂfiÂculÂty of filmÂing rose-eatÂing ants. You can read the entire thing here. It’s well worth you time.
via ThompÂson on HolÂlyÂwood H/T SheerÂly
RelatÂed ConÂtent:
Andy Warhol InterÂviews Alfred HitchÂcock (1974)
LisÂten to François Truffaut’s Big, 12-Hour InterÂview with Alfred HitchÂcock (1962)
AkiÂra KuroÂsawa & FranÂcis Ford CopÂpoÂla Star in JapanÂese Whisky ComÂmerÂcials (1980)
Jonathan Crow is a Los AngeÂles-based writer and filmÂmakÂer whose work has appeared in Yahoo!, The HolÂlyÂwood Reporter, and othÂer pubÂliÂcaÂtions. You can folÂlow him at @jonccrow.



